The government is not doing those things. Valve is. The purpose of the social media law is to prevent people under 16 from from being able to post online (they’re allowed to read).

Is it a stupid law? Yes.
Should it be the parent’s responsibility to be aware of what their kids are doing/exposed to online? Also, yes.

I don’t know how this has turned into some sort of discussion about the games themselves. It’s the Community Hub where users discuss games that is the issue as far as the government is concerned. Valve has responded by making it about the games. Probably because if they blocked our access to the Community Hubs, most of us wouldn’t notice/care.

All that said: Whether I agree with a law or not, I do believe the government should have the leverage to enforce the law. The other side of the discussion is valid also though. I believe Valve should have the right to say ‘no’ to laws from foreign nations. I don’t know what the consequences should be in that case though. Provide refunds for our purchases and close our accounts? I can’t see that being viable.

Like I said: fascinating to watch this play out.

Poor wording on my part. People are saying things like ‘unless I made my account when I was 3, my fifteen year old account should be enough’. Fifteen years of gaming history on the other hand is reasonable evidence of the account holder’s age.

In my example, My son will have a 15-year-old account by the time he turns 17. I made them because I thought it’d be a fun bit of clout when they start playing with their mates. ‘How do you have a 10+ year badge already?’.

We are small, but lucrative. If something is introduced where Valve faces losing access to the Australian market, they’ll 100% cave. No ‘principal’ from their end is worth however many Millions of dollars they receive from this market - particularly since they do honestly have actual competition. Valve enjoys market share mostly because they were first and are convenient. If they cease to be convenient, they will lose that share overnight. We’re already seeing people in this thread say they are going to stop buying games on Steam. The main reason I do most of my shopping at the Steam Store is that most of my library is there. Not for any other particular reason.

I don’t know what the the government can do that will stop people dealing with Steam, unless they can intervene at the bank level. That’s where the fascination is coming from. This is the first decent-sized site to show this level of resistance to the policy.

This implementation of age verification by Valve is at-best so poorly considered that I expect them to re-evaluate soon. The first issue is that they want the card on-file. I purchased a game for my child on Monday, using a Credit Card. So, I obviously have a credit card. I didn’t keep the card on-file, I used it for a single purchase. My Steam account is still age-locked.

I will concede that ‘age of account’ alone isn’t too good of a test - I created a Steam accounts for my kids when they were little (2 and 5). The oldest has started using his account, the youngest will probably start next year. XBox used account activity - and that’s a better test. Having 15 years of gaming history is a better test than a 10-year-old account that only started seeing regular use 2 years ago.

Because I know far too much about these age verification laws (for obvious reasons), I can also attest that Valve is not complying with the Age Verification as outlined in Regulatory guidance. If you are willing to go through the document, the relevant section is:

2.3.3 Accessible, inclusive and fair
Providers should ensure age assurance methods and surrounding systems and processes are accessible, inclusive and fair.

That same section also goes on to give advice on verification means, saying it should not discriminate end-users based on pretty-much any metric you can think of. They especially call-out discrimination against Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. A demographic where the majority of citizens do not have credit cards. They also fail to follow the guidance “Providers should offer a choice between a range of age assurance methods”.

Valve wrote to the eSafety commissioner a year ago, requesting to be exempt from the law. They were denied. Assorted sites are claiming that eSafety Commissioner’s office is engaging with Valve (example), though I haven’t found anything on their website to acknowledge that. In short, Valve are not presently complying with the law and something will need to give.

I called their age verification implementation “poorly considered”, because I actually think they’re being intentionally belligerent. I suspect they are hoping the government is going to back down. I don’t know how that’s going to play out, or how the eSafety commissioner is going to respond. I don’t know what ‘big guns’ the government has here. This case is fascinating to observe from the side-lines.

At the point where you found the airtag in the bin, the camera went from lost to stolen. Sorry about that - having “lost” (it was stolen) a DSLR myself, I know how sucky that is. 😢

It’s currently around 6.9%. With mortgages around $800k, that’s over $1k per week interest (not paying any of the principal off). It’s already insane.

Cotality executive research director Tim Lawless told SBS News that the top end of the housing market historically moves first in a property cycle.

Here’s hoping the rest of the market follows.

Their marketing and public image is appalling. People equate them with the hardcore Greenpeace style warrior. Young people fixated on a single topic (environment) and willing to hurt the nation in furtherance of that topic. This is especially the case with voters over 40, who remember when the Greens essentially were like this in the 20th century.

If you sit down and go through their policies, not only are they in fact reasonable, they’re probably the best and most transparent party in terms of what they stand for. My only criticism of their platform is it’s a little vague on the how they plan to do stuff and some of it tends to be aspirational rather than achievable. Still, it’s great stuff.

But the percentage of voters who go through the actual stated policies of their choices are sadly in the minority.

Lemmy is not the Fediverse, and I happen to think it’s pretty easy to figure out. But I’ve come from USENET > Forums > Reddit to get here. Someone who hasn’t had that background sees a bunch of random links that are probably not of interest to them. Reddit has it’s default “Popular” feed, and before that had a bunch of curated default subscriptions to get people started. Lemmy doesn’t. There’s Subscribed, Local and All.

“All” is a mess. It’s super US-centric and all about their politics.
“Local” is of course dependant on the Instance. I live on ours, so I happen to like it. But, I can see how someone (particularly a non-Australian) wouldn’t find it to their taste. Most instances will have little (or maybe one busy Community) in Local.
And finally you have “Subscribed”. Which is empty by default. How is a new person who has never been on Reddit supposed to know what to do with that link? It literally has nothing.

Now, take that new person to something like Mastodon. Your default feed there is just the equivalent of All. And odds are someone’s first taste of Mastodon is going to be all about US politics and people yelling about something. Again, not a great first impression.

“The Algorithm” as we loosely define it is supposed to fix this. It is supposed to bring you content you like, learn what you like and bring you more content that you like.

This is wild and interesting! IT consultant is approached to make some reports. IT consultant makes reports with open information he finds online, embellishes his stuff by saying he spoke to KRudd, and just makes shit up.

Still goes to prison, not for espionage - because he didn’t steal any government secrets. But for State interference. His dodgy lies might damage the Australia/China relationship.

The reports were handed to Ken or Evelyn in person – sometimes at restaurants and cafes devoid of other people – in exchange for envelopes containing the equivalent of thousands of dollars in cash.

While the information was worthless, the jury accepted prosecution submissions that the relationship with Csergo and his contacts was valuable.

Ultimately, Smith ruled it was important to deter the wider community from being wooed into compromising Australia’s national security.

This is the part that is most interesting to me. You ask a consultant to consult, and offer them envelopes of cash for the work. Of course a lot of them are going to say “yes” and not ask too many questions. But you can be imprisoned for this - even when the bulk of what you are providing is stuff you can glean from government websites, reports and whatever you find online with a bit of personal speculation and fibs sprinkled in. Not actual government clearance stuff.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence and all that, but I wouldn’t have realised that what he had done is illegal. Which I suppose is the Judge’s point.

It’s funny to me that everyone agrees the algorithm is bad; yet one of the common criticisms of Lemmy/Fediverse is its lack of an algorithm - making it less user-friendly to new users.

Fly shots are free in WA from May 1 - Jul 31.
So it depends on the state.

So, this is the back aisle of some old Coles somewhere in rural Queensland?

(That’s a Coles sign describing whatever is in the next aisle)

I’m guessing they’re out of toilet paper? What’s the context of the photo?

Leaving aside the “socialism/capitalism” thing for a moment, is there something going on in Queensland leading to shortages of something? Or is this guy using a photo from 2020?

Given that Health is usually a Stare Government portfolio matter, this will come down to the state health departments. WA has an annual vaccine programme for the flu, I’ve been getting both Flu and Covid boosters every year for the last 3-4 years. I didn’t realise the federal government has been covering the Covid one all this time. I thought the state paid for both.

It sounds like the Covid Vaccine is moving away from the federal health department. That doesn’t mean the states (or some of them at least) might not pick up the tab. So ‘Australians could lose access to the free vaccine’ in some cases. But the article doesn’t specify which Australians, because they don’t know. It doesn’t come right out and say Australians will lose access to the free vaccine either - because again, they don’t actually know.

I hate articles like this. Ambiguous wording leading to probable fearmongering.

I understand that this topic is not high on your agenda. That does not make it petty. As someone involved in volunteering my time to help run what the government describes as a social media site and as the parent of a teenager and tween, social media is in fact something that matters to me.

I do not want to be one of those parents whose kid kills themself over shit they were exposed to on Social Media. I probably know more about the topic than most parents and am unlikely to face that scenario. But that’s the thing - I don’t want other parents to face that situation either, over something we can possibly do something about. If you’ve followed the topic as it’s been covered on the site, you’ll probably know my personal feelings on the present Social Media reforms.

More than half Aussie kids have faced cyberbullying source. That number skyrockets if there’s something “different” about them (eg. Trans kids are over 80%). Three aussie kids are attempting suicide per week over “petty” stuff they’re exposed to online source.

But you know what? I also care about climate change and our existing fossil fuel policies. I likely even agree with you on that topic. I’d be more than willing to engage on that topic in a discussion where it’s relevant.

But don’t sit there and call something that doesn’t affect you “petty”.

The government talks about several matters simultaneously. Discussion of one topic neither prevents nor hinders existing focus on other points.
If you wish to talk about a different topic to the one at-hand, feel free to make a post about it.

Here, I’ll even provide a possible link for you: https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/what-norway-s-3trn-wealth-fund-can-teach-australia-about-gas-taxes-20260416-p5zo9n

This was your original Facebook feed. Chronological updates from your friends. Like a stream of shower thoughts, kid updates, silly shit someone’s family member said etc. I deleted Facebook when it was still like this, so it’s kept that vibe in my mind.

Wow, you’re not wrong. I’d never heard of him until your comment prompted a quick search. I guess this is more a Queensland thing, because even now knowing who he is, I don’t care much.

If his identity is officially suppressed, this can’t be brought up in parliament. That’s about the only reason I can see he’d maintain his “anonymity”.

Just open them and leave.

I also hate the self checkouts because of the cameras. They can’t handle anything reliably that isn’t ‘take from side a, scan, place on scale’. You do anything tricky like try scanning two of the same item and they straight-up accuse you of stealing a $3 packet of timtams.

I’ve only had the gate fail to be open on me once. I just opened it and left. It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just theatre. They’re designed to be openable otherwise we have fire safety issues.

Unless I’m buying 2-3 items, I almost never use the self checkout.

I read an article by the Movember crew talking about algorithms and young men/teenagers. The bit that really stood out to me was the insidiousness of the algorithms. I’m paraphrasing, but it was something like:

'Extreme content is seeded into their feed among games and sports and regular stuff. They don’t start out seeking this stuff, the algorithm brings it to them.

So a 14 year old kid saw this stuff on tiktok and started going down that path himself. I guess we should be grateful that 14 year olds are not subtle and clever. He’d have probably been flagged by Google for searching for dodgy stuff from his home IP.